Jump to content

domgrima

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK

domgrima's Achievements

Ensign

Ensign (1/8)

  1. quote: I find it interesting that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of a number of your countrymen to "win" this war. Who should these volunteers be? Members of your family? Just wanted to apologise sincerely for the remark I made recently. I genuinely meant no offence. Sorry
  2. Aramike, may I refer you to your signature quote: "You can only love or hate something you truly understand." Please be clear, I do not believe it is necessary to feel sorry for terrorists. or to condone or try to understand their actions. But there should be an attempt to determine what causes people to hate America and the western world in general. If you wanna fix a problem you gotta undestand what causes it, treat the disease and not the symptoms. quote: They also don't have the knowledge of economics and supply to realize that gain is essential for any nation to survive. I think the most important word here is ANY. quote: Should someone break into your home, kill your spouse and rape your children, do you try to understand what socioeconomical-political motivations led to this individual's action? Do you feel sorry for this murderer? Help him load your car up with your valuables and give him the keys right before he kills you? Would this be giving peace a chance No, you bring him to justice and get him the hell out of your society. But you don't condemn his whole family and acquaintances along with him
  3. quote:Originally posted by aramike: I agree with you in part that most creation-based sites seem to spend all their time debunking evolution. However, you must keep in mind that creation, by nature, is metaphysical. It's NOT something that can be scientifically determined at this time. Metaphysical versus physical and all that noise. So, while we may not have physical evidence of the EVENT of creation, we DO have physical evidence of creation itself -- that would be everything that exists. The problem then comes in as tying creation to everything that exists. Combining metaphysical and physical. No dice. We can, however, use some logic in determining such things. First instance: how would something come from nothing? Secondly, if the biological foundations that made life possible via evolution existed, where did THEY come from? Third, you've got to look at mathematical probability. Life is very environmentally-dependant. Fourth, you've got to look at the principle of "Natural Guiding". Evolution is firmly BASED upon the assertion that all life has a will to survive. The question I pose is, where does that will come from? Why would life, especially in its initial stages (devoid of any semblance of sentience or {gasp}, intelligence) have a will to survive? And finally, assuming that there is a will to survive, why is that adaptive survival species-oriented and NOT individualistic? All of those questions have not been answered by science yet they are PIVOTAL to the theory itself. Scientific theories should not have so many holes in them, I don't think. And, even moreso, scientific theories should not make so many assumptions. must reply to some of your arguments. quote:First instance: how would something come from nothing? Secondly, if the biological foundations that made life possible via evolution existed, where did THEY come from? The foundations of life are biochemical, or more simply put - chemical. Chemistry, I think you will agree requires no input of will or desire, merely the requisite conditions and reactants.Evolution begins when certain chemical reactions become favoured over other types and thus proliferate. THIS is the most fundamental basis for evolution. quote:Third, you've got to look at mathematical probability. Life is very environmentally-dependant Life is NOT dependant on environment, it is sculpted by its environment. The organisms alive in today's environment are here BECAUSE they can survive in this current environment. Should it change, only those lifeforms able to adapt and survive would remain.There is also evidence that life in fact transorms the environment in a feedback mechanism, giving rise to further evolution (See Gaia theory - James Lovelock) quote: Fourth, you've got to look at the principle of "Natural Guiding". Evolution is firmly BASED upon the assertion that all life has a will to survive. The question I pose is, where does that will come from? Why would life, especially in its initial stages (devoid of any semblance of sentience or {gasp}, intelligence) have a will to survive? Evolution requires NO involvement of will whatsoever.Succesful life endures because its ancesters endured. Simple premise: Succesful reproduction leads to increased offspring. All other aspects of evolution are simply consequences of this action. quote:why is that adaptive survival species-oriented and NOT individualistic? Adaptive speciation is species oriented since adaptation involves changes in DNA which can only be passed on via offspring. Thus,inherited DNA mutations do NOT affect the individual in which they occur. Mutations which did affect the individual have no consequence for the species. Some would argue ( and I would tend to agree) that the survival of the individual is not important but rather the survival of the DNA. We are all consequences of hideously complicated strategies for survival and proliferation. This does NOT negate the huge sum of human achievement, it merely happens on a different level of existence.
  4. Personally I would define "gory" as being gratuitous, which can in no way be applied to Saving Private Ryan. "Gore" seems to inherently imply salacious bloody spectacle such as the ancient Roman circuses
  5. quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Eliminate them. You can't appease fanatics, especially fanatics willing to die for their cause. If it is simply a numbers game, then we will eventually win as there are 280,000,000 of us and less than 1,000,000 of them. If a quarter of them are in our country hiding in "underground sleeper cells," I assume that they are waiting for their signal to attack. I also assume that they have a "one-shot attack" as their lines of supply are either cut off, are very hard to maintain discretely, or the attacks are of the suicide variety. Therefore, attrition will work in our favor as they expend their ammo on whatever attacks are yet to happen. So, we absorb a few hits, make a few hits in return, and take more of a siege mentality regarding homeland attacks. I find it interesting that you are willing to sacrifice the lives of a number of your countrymen to "win" this war. Who should these volunteers be? Members of your family? Why must the loss of lives be balanced by more loss of life? Please clarify who you mean by 1000,000 fanatics?
  6. quote:Originally posted by thanatos: . The logic is good: the idea is good, BUT I don't know how we implement diplomacy with a people who want nothing less than our destruction. We have been attacked on our homeland; not an attack against a military base in Saudi Arabia; not an attack against U.S. soldiers in foreign lands. Would understanding the problems which created Nazi Germany have stopped Hitler? Would understanding Hirohito have stopped Imperial Japan? Should China decide to invade Taiwan and other regional Pacific rim countries, do we try to understand the "why"? Both the idea to understand the root cause of any national/political problem, and the desire to avenge with fire transgressions are age old. Islamic militants have attacked Christian Europe at isolated intervals over the past 1300 years in jihad. We are just now the biggest infidel in the world, and our open society makes an internal attack easy. Thoughts on how to appease terrorists? The first few lines of this quote encapsulate part of the problem I am trying to highlight. 1)"BUT I don't know how....etc." But lack of knowledge does not exclude the possibility of an answer. I personally don't know how the internet is structured but I can still send this message 2)"a people who want nothing less than our destruction". It is not "a people" but a defined group of individuals who are responsible for Sep 11. It should be these specific people who are hunted down and brought to justice, NOT killed for vengeance.And the concept of "collateral damage" should not be an acceptable one. Without the "why" of historical atrocities we make no progress, we only indulge in the temporary satisfaction of vengeance
  7. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Sunanta, The Constitution was meant to be taken word for word, it is NOT a living breathing document. It's meaning is clear, it's meaning was meant to be clear. There can be NO mistaking what the constitution says. Also, the constitution is the SUPREMEME law of the land, what it says goes in all 50 states. The states cannot intrude on the bill of rights just as the federal government cannot infringe on those rights. If a state creates a law that goes against the constitution, that law is NULL AND VOID!! Unfortunately languages ARE living, breathing entities and so the interpretation of such documents will always lead to ambiguities null
  8. I have read these messages with great interest and would like to make a few of my own humble opinions.(Feel free to shoot me down in flames if you will) As a confirmed atheist, I have a number of views on organised religions and their involvement with war and strife. First, I believe religions ARE an important part of many people's lives and I have the utmost respect for peoples' beliefs.There is a strong argument for the necessity of religion in evolving civilisations, as tools of state for the control AND moral guidance of the general population.Historically, education seems to have been the privilige and duty of the religious sector, leading to more widespread literacy as a civilisation grows in stature. Organised religions also seem to fulfill a deep rooted need for spiritual guidance and moral structure on an individual basis (hence most (ALL?) religions are founded on a basic set of tenets/dogma.) The existence of an omnipotent figure seems to fulfill the need for a paternal authority figure, thus abdicating ultimate responsibilty to an external,all knowing source.This helps humans to make sense of many of life's inexplicable events ( or alternatively assumes that even if we cannot make sense of it, at least "someone" knows what is going on and our lives are not merely a random sequence of events. (Please note - I do not necessarily assume that my beliefs are right and that others are wrong. But I do assume that I have the right to hold such beliefs without causing harm or stress to others) With regards holy wars, I believe such catastrophes are founde simply on the fear of the "outsider". Such xenophobia exists in many threads of human existence ( notably racism, sexism,religious and political conflict) This "them vs. us" attititude most easily finds justification through religion."They don't subscribe to our moral code and therefore are immoral....QED". This allows participants to deny the humanity of their enemy, relieving feelings of guilt. Does anybody really believe that the majority of Afghans wish to kill all Americans/Christians? Not me. I think that 90% of these people wish merely to live out their lives in peace and happiness surrounded by loved ones and with hope for the future ( don't you?) September 11th was NOT caused by Afghan or Islams, but by a group of malcontent, undeniably evil men under the cover of a religious cause. No society is purely innocent, and no effect without its causes. This does not excuse in any way the actions of these ( or any other) terrorist. But it does suggest that we, the developed world, if we seriously wish to defeat terrorism need to attack the root causes of such phenomena. I think this requires more subtle measures than those being carried out at present. Its an old argument, but how many more future terrorists will be born from this latest conflict? Old hatreds are renewed by these types of conflict and I think the cycle of vengeance can only be broken by diplomatic means. This means sitting down with people whom may disgust you ( to paraphrase Yasser Arafat " I will make peace with my enemies". Witness the progress made in Northern Ireland. Talks between the British government and the IRA was unthinkable when John Major first initiated events. But I believe that the IRA are now so involved in the peace process at a diplomatic level that they would find it hard to go back to their old ways. They have been given too much to lose. Well I guess this is pretty rambling but hope my comments are of interest and will generate some meaningful commments
×
×
  • Create New...